I.T.A. No. 193/Vizag/2013, (Assessment Year: 2003-2004). Case: Bommareddy Venkata Krishna Reddy Vs ITO Ward-2. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | I.T.A. No. 193/Vizag/2013, (Assessment Year: 2003-2004) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: G.V.N. Hari, AR and For Respondents: D. Komali Krishna, DR |
| Judges | V. Durga Rao, Member (J) and G. Manjunatha, Member (A) |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 271(1)(c) |
| Judgement Date | November 27, 2015 |
| Court | ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
V. Durga Rao, Member (J), (ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench)
-
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-11, Mumbai, Camp at Visakhapatnam for the assessment year 2003-04.
-
Facts are in brief that the assessee filed return of income of ` 1,13,178/- and an agricultural income of ` 3,75,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that assessee has taken up the project in the name of SVKT's Naresh Towers at Eluru for construction of 40 flats in the joint venture. The project was completed in the assessment year 2003-04 after it was started in the financial year 2001-02. However, the assessee has neither shown any investment nor any income from the said property and accordingly, the AO has determined the income from the said project assessable as a share of assessee for the joint venture for the assessment year 2003-04 at Rs. 4,13,105/-. Thereafter, assessing officer has issued a show cause notice and called the explanation from the assessee that why proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') cannot be initiated. The assessee has filed a detailed reply before the AO. However, the assessing officer has not accepted the explanation given by the assessee and imposed the penalty by observing that the assessee has deliberately concealed an income from transfer of joint venture, though he was fully aware of the joint venture right from 2001 when he entered into a partnership firm with the other partner. Subsequent voluntary disclosure when confronted with the evidences collected by the Department does not exonerate the assessee from imposition of penalty for concealment of income. Accordingly, penalty was imposed.
-
Assessee has carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). He has submitted a detailed explanation in which he has explained that since the construction of the flats and pent house were not complete in all respects, the same were not handed over to him by the end of the financial year 2002-03. The assessee being basically an agriculturist was under bonafide belief that there would not arise any profit or income on surrender of his site and acquisition of 3 flats and pent house. The Ld. Commissioner after considering his explanation, he was of the opinion that admittedly the assessee not disclosed income from the housing project and that has been determined at Rs. 4,13,105/- and the same has been assessed and no appeal has been preferred against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial